Pages: 1 … 6 7 8

 

2006-08-25 11:07:39
Dersmikner
Member
+147|6760|Texas
The 38 Special... Long Live the Curts.

And back on topic:

Albert -

1. To my knowledge I've never felt the need to attack a cop. I have done MUCH wrong in my life, and been thrown in the Crossbar Hilton for it, but as bset I can remember I was never really ever completely mistreated by a police officer. Now, I still plan to anally rape a former Assistant County Attorney and corrupt Judge who were tools to me once, but that's a different story.

I'm not one of these people who disregards the 4th Amendment or who thinks that the police are sainted, but I've never really been in a bad situation with them because in general I don't fuck around.

2. Whatever. The Norse conquered most of the British Isles, the British conquered what we now call The United States of America, everybody was the aggressor at some point. I guess you're for driving Spain out of existence because in 1425 the Muslims were run out of there? Let's remember to give Australia back to the Aborigines while we're at it.

All we can do is start from today, or you tell me where to draw the line. After the Palestinians (from the word Philistine, "conquerer") took over, or before, or should we bring back the Cananites?

3. You want to beat the shit out of a cop, but don't think law abiding citizens should be able to carry implements of self defense. I can't convince you of my position and you won't convince me of yours, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I have yet to use a weapon against a civilian in day to day life, and pray I won't ever have to... I like knowing that I can defend myself if I have to though.
2006-08-25 11:09:53
HM1{N}
Member
+86|6906|East Coast via Los Angeles, CA

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

HM1{N} wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

a question with a question, its all fitting in,
I don't see how, you are trying to make some correlation between my MOS and my views on Israel, I don't see how that's relevant.

Unless of course you are trying to imply that my MOS is indicative of my intelligence level, in which case I will tell you this: I maxed the ASVAB when I took it...and I graduated college with a 3.97GPA.
so, what was your MOS?
11B1V

Now how is that relevant?
2006-08-25 11:20:41
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6906|Seattle, WA

oug wrote:

1. Yes you are reading this right. Cops are here to control you/ the people. Try demonstrating against a decision of your government and see what happens. Remember what happened in your city, Seattle, a few years back? Or were you too young back then?

2. Who decided they were terrorist states? Your government? WHO THE FUCK ARE THEY TO DUDGE? And about them pre-emptive strikes: The law says innocent until proven guilty. What happened to that?

3. In all civilized countries of the world, all law abiding people DO NOT carry firearms. The old west is dead.

Grow up little boy. Do what you must to form a decent opinion, then come here to lecture me about terrorism, the role of the government in contemporary societies, arms and the like. Because I'm not going to waste any more time about the basics with you or anyone else.
1) I understand your contention but you mean that you want to assault a police officer for no good reason but your disagreement on society and the way business is run?  Are you talking about WTO because if you are you had better have SOME GOD DAMNED HARD FACTS about that event because I was fucking there and the police did not a god damned thing wrong.  Assholes rioted and destroyed part of my beautiful town, so you had better god damn quote something other than talking points (Sorry for the hostility someone else tried to challenge me on this and failed miserably when they could produce NOTHING)

2) Oh, so Iran never attacked any American targets through Hezbollah, and North Korea is our ally.  I understand your point.

3) !?!?!? You've got a serious problem with this one, I suggest you read More Guns Less Crime, a very unbiased approach at the issue http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/022649 … p;n=283155

So the thousands of crimes that are prevented every year in the U.S. by law abiding citizens that own firearms, and using them to prevent those crimes is bad?  Instead of your opinion, try actually articulating something that would prove or at least imply that guns in the hand of citizens instead of only criminals is a bad thing.

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-08-25 11:21:04)

2006-08-25 11:30:19
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6906|Seattle, WA
Oug, since your either very slow or just left....

Here is a fact from the National Center for Policy Analysis (a very unbiased group) http://www.ncpa.org/

"benefits of defensive gun use exceed the costs of firearm crimes by as much as $38.9 billion—an amount equal to about $400 per year for every household in America."
Want to respond? What do you think about it?

Still not there eh ok some more:

More from the NCPA

1) Overall, gun owners disapprove of violence to the same extent as or even more strongly than those who do not own guns.

2) However, gun owners are more likely to approve of using defensive force against attackers.50

3) Those who exhibit "violent attitudes" - as reflected in their approval of police brutality, violence against social deviants and dissenters, and so on - are less likely to own guns.

"If anything, gun ownership is inversely correlated with criminal characteristics."
   
Gun ownership is inversely correlated with criminal characteristics. Although crime and violence " as well as gun ownership " are more frequent among males than females and in the South (a region with a moderately higher rate of violence), a closer look tells a different story. Violence is higher among black than white, young than middle-aged, single than married, lower-income than middle- and upper-income and urban than rural individuals - all contrary to the pattern of gun ownership.  In terms of crude statistical association, violence and crime are higher in locales and among populations with lower gun ownership (cities) and lower in places and populations with higher gun ownership (rural). These facts also cast doubt on the theory that violence is impulsive and/or fostered by the presence of guns.
1) I feel the same way.
2) I agree
3) Hmmm, you seem to have a violent attitude, especially towards law enforcement.  Do you own firearms?

Isn't that absolutely amazing?  So how do you think that owning a gun increases my chance of being a victim or victimizing someone,  I , after owning firearms for some time now, am MORE cautious in tense situations whether I have a firearm on me or not, I am MORE polite and MORE apt to say sorry.  What is your contention?

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-08-25 11:40:32)

2006-08-25 12:43:21
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6843|SE London

Those are silly facts that distort the true picture.

NCPA wrote:

violence and crime are higher in locales and among populations with lower gun ownership (cities) and lower in places and populations with higher gun ownership (rural). These facts also cast doubt on the theory that violence is impulsive and/or fostered by the presence of guns.
Of course the violent crime rate is higher in cities. It's not correlated to gun ownership in any way.

The statement of course is true, but very deceptive. It paints a picture of gun ownership reducing crime. When in fact the opposite is true. There is lower crime in rural areas than in cities regardless of gun ownership - it is people who commit crimes and social (or psychological, but that can happen anywhere - although more likely to happen in cities because more people live there) factors that make people commit crimes. Guns are just a means to an end. Guns make it much easier to commit a crime.

Banning firearms entirely leads to a reduction in crime and a massive reduction in gun related crime.
Look at international statistics which show a direct correlation with banning guns and a reduction in crime rates.

Don't give me the whole 'it's in the constitution' crap either - it was in the British bill of rights to be able to bear arms. Now you can't - haven't been able to for several years now and violent crime, especially gun related crime has fallen by a LOT.

It is not that owning a gun increases your chances of being a victim of gun crime. It is the fact that you are able to own a gun. If you can own one, then so can most criminals.

NCPA wrote:

Those who exhibit "violent attitudes" - as reflected in their approval of police brutality, violence against social deviants and dissenters, and so on - are less likely to own guns.
I don't believe that for one second. In America there may well be overwhelming statistics showing that more law-abiding citizens own guns than criminals - but that prooves very little, other than the fact that lots of people own guns and do not break the law.

I also totally refute the fact that the NCPA are a very unbiased group.


If no one is allowed guns - gun crime falls, not only gun crime - but violent crime, especially deaths from violent crime. That is a fact. A fact that has been proven in all countries that have introduced very strict gun control laws like the UK.
2006-08-25 13:32:57
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|6946|United States of America
How does banning the weapons of law abiding citizens help? Home defense or hunting weapons are purchased by people who actually register them and intend to use them for recreation/protection. The criminals are those who do not register weapons or even legally purchase them because they plan to commit crimes with them. Declare society utterly defenseless and I tell you, crime will skyrocket. I'd like to see how you plan to collect every firearm from the criminals without a confrontation.

I recall seeing some statistics on this forum about a town which has mandatory gun law requiring everybody to own one that had such a low crime rate. Anyone remember and know the location of this?
2006-08-25 13:34:36
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6804|Texas - Bigger than France
http://www.mcsm.org/kennesaw.html

Ps. I only found the website.
2006-08-25 13:36:40
..teddy..jimmy
Member
+1,393|6911
bull shit is that story true
2006-08-25 13:41:58
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6804|Texas - Bigger than France
Here's a better source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw%2C_Georgia
2006-08-25 13:43:10
[Valhalla]iMac_Attack
Member
+2|7022|Houston, Texas

jonsimon wrote:

Your arguments are inane and uninformed, your logic flawed in its core, and your ego a blemish on mankind.

There are so many things wrong with everything in your two posts, I'm not even going to try to enumerate them all.
Just give us one, i can't find any reason why you would call his post flawed.  enlighten me oh mighty one.
2006-08-25 14:05:07
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6843|SE London

DesertFox423 wrote:

How does banning the weapons of law abiding citizens help? Home defense or hunting weapons are purchased by people who actually register them and intend to use them for recreation/protection. The criminals are those who do not register weapons or even legally purchase them because they plan to commit crimes with them. Declare society utterly defenseless and I tell you, crime will skyrocket. I'd like to see how you plan to collect every firearm from the criminals without a confrontation.

I recall seeing some statistics on this forum about a town which has mandatory gun law requiring everybody to own one that had such a low crime rate. Anyone remember and know the location of this?
Strange how when guns are outlawed totally - violent crime falls massively.

It is a trend that has held true for every country that has banned gun ownership.

The entire argument that people need guns to protect themselves is absurd.

Of course it's just coincidence that the gun crime rate in America is one of the highest in the world and gun control laws are very lax.
2006-08-25 16:24:39
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|6915
we should change it back in Britain, but why stop at guns... recreational claymore pwnership ftw!
2006-08-25 17:36:10
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6843|SE London

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

we should change it back in Britain, but why stop at guns... recreational claymore pwnership ftw!
I dunno - it's annoying enough in BF2.

Imagine it - you're walking down to the shops, walk round a corner and Kaboom! No more legs.
2006-08-25 17:55:36
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|6946|United States of America
I'm sure violent crime will drop if you manage to get every single weapon from every person who has or has not registered their weapons. The bad part is that criminals who scoff at the law in the first place will not give up their weapons when they can have such an advantage over defenseless shopkeeps and such. It's not practical to attempt to pull the nonviolence card and ban firearms. Those who follow the law are gettin collectively punished for the actions of criminals. Meanwhile, the criminals are not going to turn in their weapons without a fight. They'll hide them and do whatever it takes to keep their firepower advantage to commit crimes on helpless people.

Here's some good reading: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Example-Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993. Nonfatal firearm crime rates have declined since 1994, reaching the lowest level ever recorded in 2004.

The arguement that weapons are useful for home defense is not absurd. Are you familiar with the act of a home invasion?
The United States is #24 crime statistics for murders per capita. Not necessarily even perpetrated with a firearm, with an amount of 0.042802 per 1,000 people . Second, Somalia has lax gun control. The problem, I say again, is the criminals who are illegally buying and selling weapons for whatever purpose suits their desire.

I apologize that this current debate has nothing to do with the original topic subject but merged into another issue about a page or so ago.

Last edited by DesertFox423 (2006-08-25 17:57:16)

2006-08-26 07:03:05
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6781|Πάϊ

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

1) I understand your contention but you mean that you want to assault a police officer for no good reason but your disagreement on society and the way business is run?  Are you talking about WTO because if you are you had better have SOME GOD DAMNED HARD FACTS about that event because I was fucking there and the police did not a god damned thing wrong.  Assholes rioted and destroyed part of my beautiful town, so you had better god damn quote something other than talking points (Sorry for the hostility someone else tried to challenge me on this and failed miserably when they could produce NOTHING)

2) Oh, so Iran never attacked any American targets through Hezbollah, and North Korea is our ally.  I understand your point.

3) !?!?!? You've got a serious problem with this one, I suggest you read More Guns Less Crime, a very unbiased approach at the issue http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/022649 … p;n=283155

So the thousands of crimes that are prevented every year in the U.S. by law abiding citizens that own firearms, and using them to prevent those crimes is bad?  Instead of your opinion, try actually articulating something that would prove or at least imply that guns in the hand of citizens instead of only criminals is a bad thing.
1. Again if you don't have a clue as to why those people rioted in the streets of your city and then in other cities of the world like Genova, Athens etc etc I can be of no assistance. This is a great issue and I honestly don't have time to analyze or explain it to you. If you really want to know, look for yourself cause I don't intend to spend my day on this forum. Sorry.

About the police force in general, yes there are plenty of cases in which a police officer will be of service to the public and the common good. Frankly, I doubt if any society is ready to live without them. On the other hand though, you must acknowledge that the police is the government's means of shutting you up.

So, no, I don't want to assault a police officer for no reason. I will assault him though, when he tries to stand against the peoples' will, protecting the decisions of WTO or whatever.

2. The USA, being the only superpower today, must have enemies. If there are none, they will be fabricated. I understand that being an American makes the above sentence sound like a bash towards your country. But any sole superpower would do the same. So get over it. Your country seeks to control the oil - producing countries in the ME. They seek to control rising powers like China.

They seek to control other nuclear powers like Korea, India, Pakistan etc, and undermine the European Union, as a possible future threat.

They want to monopolize the arms trade around the world etc. Naturally, this fucking with other countries and people will produce at least some hatred and enemies. 

Before you call someone a terrorist, I suggest you realize first what that word means. Because in my book, your government has created the single most successful terrorist state the world has ever seen.

3. And about the most ridiculous of all your arguments: Incidents like the Columbine massacre only happen in your country, because any fucking lunatic is able to go and buy himself a gun, and have it wandering around where his little children are playing.

The only reason you are still allowed to carry firearms is because some companies are making a huge profit out of this deal. It is the same companies that financially help your governors into power. Your government doesn't give a fuck that you are blasting each other to pieces. They only care about the money so they make up those stupid biased research results you gave me, saying you're better off with guns. Wake up.
ƒ³
2006-08-26 07:09:01
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6843|SE London

oug wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

1) I understand your contention but you mean that you want to assault a police officer for no good reason but your disagreement on society and the way business is run?  Are you talking about WTO because if you are you had better have SOME GOD DAMNED HARD FACTS about that event because I was fucking there and the police did not a god damned thing wrong.  Assholes rioted and destroyed part of my beautiful town, so you had better god damn quote something other than talking points (Sorry for the hostility someone else tried to challenge me on this and failed miserably when they could produce NOTHING)

2) Oh, so Iran never attacked any American targets through Hezbollah, and North Korea is our ally.  I understand your point.

3) !?!?!? You've got a serious problem with this one, I suggest you read More Guns Less Crime, a very unbiased approach at the issue http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/022649 … p;n=283155

So the thousands of crimes that are prevented every year in the U.S. by law abiding citizens that own firearms, and using them to prevent those crimes is bad?  Instead of your opinion, try actually articulating something that would prove or at least imply that guns in the hand of citizens instead of only criminals is a bad thing.
1. Again if you don't have a clue as to why those people rioted in the streets of your city and then in other cities of the world like Genova, Athens etc etc I can be of no assistance. This is a great issue and I honestly don't have time to analyze or explain it to you. If you really want to know, look for yourself cause I don't intend to spend my day on this forum. Sorry.

About the police force in general, yes there are plenty of cases in which a police officer will be of service to the public and the common good. Frankly, I doubt if any society is ready to live without them. On the other hand though, you must acknowledge that the police is the government's means of shutting you up.

So, no, I don't want to assault a police officer for no reason. I will assault him though, when he tries to stand against the peoples' will, protecting the decisions of WTO or whatever.

2. The USA, being the only superpower today, must have enemies. If there are none, they will be fabricated. I understand that being an American makes the above sentence sound like a bash towards your country. But any sole superpower would do the same. So get over it. Your country seeks to control the oil - producing countries in the ME. They seek to control rising powers like China.

They seek to control other nuclear powers like Korea, India, Pakistan etc, and undermine the European Union, as a possible future threat.

They want to monopolize the arms trade around the world etc. Naturally, this fucking with other countries and people will produce at least some hatred and enemies. 

Before you call someone a terrorist, I suggest you realize first what that word means. Because in my book, your government has created the single most successful terrorist state the world has ever seen.

3. And about the most ridiculous of all your arguments: Incidents like the Columbine massacre only happen in your country, because any fucking lunatic is able to go and buy himself a gun, and have it wandering around where his little children are playing.

The only reason you are still allowed to carry firearms is because some companies are making a huge profit out of this deal. It is the same companies that financially help your governors into power. Your government doesn't give a fuck that you are blasting each other to pieces. They only care about the money so they make up those stupid biased research results you gave me, saying you're better off with guns. Wake up.
So right it's not even funny.

oug wrote:

They seek to control other nuclear powers like Korea, India, Pakistan etc, and undermine the European Union, as a possible future threat.
Exactly, what do you think NATO is still around for? The threat from the USSR is gone. Yet proposals from the EU to form a European coallition to replace NATO with an EU coalition have been utterly rejected and condemned by the Pentagon. Why? Because they want military and secruity influence in Europe, the largest trading community in the world.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-08-26 07:12:46)

2006-08-26 10:59:16
HM1{N}
Member
+86|6906|East Coast via Los Angeles, CA
This thread is soooooooo off track.
2006-08-26 11:39:53
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6804|Texas - Bigger than France
Favorite bumper sticker I've seen on a bumper sticker: China Has Gun Control. 
Makes no sense - unless its on a dooley pickup with a baseball bat in the gun rack.

Anyway to get back on track?

I'll try SAT style:
Rodney King is to LAPD as Lebanon is to ????
or if you prefer
Unprotected sex is to STDs as The Hez is to ???
2006-08-26 13:23:04
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6906

Pug wrote:

Unprotected sex is to STDs as The Hez is to ???
lebanese and israeli civilians dying
2006-08-26 13:24:15
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6804|Texas - Bigger than France
See, it's almost too easy.
2006-08-26 13:28:46
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6906

Pug wrote:

See, it's almost too easy.
oh no, we cant blame hezballah for killing civilians. the civilians that die because hezziboys wanna fight understand completely.

two wrongs always make a right.

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-08-26 13:29:17)

2006-08-27 07:08:47
jonsimon
Member
+224|6757
Two wrights make an airplane.

This thread is dead, somebody close it.

 

Pages: 1 … 6 7 8

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard